Jan 09 2006

Butthead Aussie Fetalist Lacks Clue re: Globs of Cells

Note: We’re Blogging For Choice today. Check it out.

Sure, he’s an Australian, but he’s clearly been studying American godbaggery:

Deputy Nationals Leader Warren Truss has spoken out against giving women access to the abortion pill RU486, arguing they should not see a termination as “the easy way out” of an unwanted pregnancy.

For pete’s sake. Why shouldn‘t women have an easy way out? Men sure as hell do.

I could not be more sick and tired of the intolerable misogynist position that women should (a) suffer horrible emotional debilitation over the supposedly traumatic decision to excise a few parasitic cells from our personal organs, and (b) crawl on our knees over broken glass to get it done. For the lovagod, it’s not a fucking baby. It’s a glob of cells.

When it comes to the human uterus, our honky male government is little more than a pink-faced godbag goon squad delivering pious admonitions and patronizing punishments to citizens who merely wish to exercise their supposed right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Allowing this honky male government to restrict access to abortion makes pregnancy compulsory. An American woman who is compelled to reproduce is not an autonomous being. She is not even a free citizen of the United States. She is livestock.

Will the universe spin out of control if women make decisions about microscopic clots of cells infesting our personal uteruses? The contingency is remote. The universe doesn’t give a fig for globules of human genetic material any more than it does for globules of adult human flesh. For example, the mass murders of actual, fully realized humans have been perpetrated for personal gain, without apparent compunction, and, in the case of our American president, with a kind of feckless pleasure, since time immemorial, without noticeable derangement of the cosmos.

Not even Jesus gives a fuck. For centuries the guy has stood quietly by, displaying a remarkable indifference to all sorts of genocides. George Bush, like all the savage homicidal kings before him, intimates that Jesus directs him to commit his mass murders. So if the gruesome spectacle of 30,000 slaughtered Iraqi civilians hasn’t made old Jeez bust a vein, why should the dude bat an eye over a few mindless cells?

Of course, the abortion issue isn’t really about the preferences of a dead Jew from the Roman Empire. It’s not about darling little fetal heartbeats or the sanctity of human life, either. It’s about patriarchy’s most sacred duty: fucking women over.


1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. Sophie

    Nonono, you get it all wrong.
    Preventing abortion is only about making sure that white christian babies are here to resist the islamic invasion (because muslims do control the wombs of their women, as any religious man should). This is a long piece but it’s batshit insane, and the pope is in it : http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/01/01-week/index.php#a000962

  2. Will


    I think you hit the nail on the head. Fighting terrorism through population growth is going to be the next way to fight both reproductive freedom and environmental issues.

    Those nutjobs have a difficult dilema though: Fight crime by having more non-whites abort or fight the terrorists by forcing more America babies to be born. Ah, they are gnashing their teeth on this problem right now!

    Fortunately, through his implicit Constitutional powers to do whatever he wants to do to protect our National security, Bush will be able force non-whites to abort (unless they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior) while simultaneously prohibiting white women from having abortions, using birth control as well, or denying men their God-given right to implant woment with their Jesus-loving, America protecing seed. John Woo is writing the memo as we speak.

  3. Steph

    And don’t forget about all the pro-natalist sentimental crap that makes cluster of cells=baby so that for many women abortion becomes this tortured decision because they’re violating their role as breeders.

    I’ve been pregnant twice (by choice) and hated all this sentimentalizing about the “little baby” inside me. In the beginning it was a force that made me exhausted and puke all the time (literally all. the. time.) Feelings of possession (as in satanic being) was more like it.

  4. Liza

    At the beginning of my very-much-wanted, lesbian-family-growing, pregnancy, my lovely wife and I had a helluva time deciding how to refer to the blob of cells that we hoped would grow into a baby. Of course we didn’t want to wind up sounding like crazed fundies or to give aid and comfort to the nutcase anti abortion forces.

    We settled on Smudge. That’s what a 3 week old blob of cells looks like on the ultrasound. Either that or a smooshed pea, but we thought Smudge was an easier “name.” I have to admit, now that he’s due in less than a month, I’ve started calling him a baby.

  5. Tony Patti

    Same feelings for my wife and I. We called the fetus “tuff stuff” and when she started to feel like a baby, we started called her the baby, even though I knew at any minute the little body in there might decide not to come out for any mysterious reason you care to entertain.

    I find the legislation of birth and the presumptive ownership of a woman’s uterus and its functions by society deeply repugnant. Attempting to strip away the most essential mystery of life and death and create laws to control it is fascist insanity.

    I believe life begins at birth. As far as I can tell, this has been the position of the majority of the planet since the beginning of history and most likely before. That means that my belief is the conservative one, and this new-fangled scientifical belief that life begins at conception a radical new way of thinking that has hardly stood the test of time the way life beginning at birth has.

  6. LCGillies

    I think I disagree a bit with your final sentence, though I see where you’re coming from. You’re closer to ‘patriarchy’s most sacred duty’, I think, in your point about livestock. Since we men don’t have uteruses, we can’t control the most fundamental means of production without controlling the women who do. If you can’t get an abortion, or in any other way control your pregnancy, you are in fact being forced to breed.

    It occurs to me that something like this dynamic might also be part of the ‘used woman’ discarding that you talked about a few days ago (there was a hair-raising piece in the NYT Times mag two weeks back by a woman divorced in her 60s that fits this situation). If you are either too old or too ill, then I as a guy can’t demonstrate to the world my ownership of a fine breeding factory. Perhaps I fear that my inability to demonstrate that even raises questions about whether I could “get” a child “upon” a fertile, healthy woman if I “had” one.

    I understand and share many individuals’ private angst about abortion—but something really rude has to be behind such an unbelievable load of hypocrisy as the political & governing Right’s version of anti-abortionism.

  7. magikmama

    We went with Ziggy, short for zygote, which morphed into Ziggers.

  8. Liz

    “Bush will be able force non-whites to abort ”

    Nah, he’ll always needs those non-white babies to grow up and become cannon fodder.

  9. tisha

    I think you just nailed it. I tip my cap to yoos.

  10. Chameleon

    All hail to you Twisty for yet again stripping away the layers of mysticism and dispelling the clouds of incense and wishful thinking to expose the ugly truth.

  11. Twisty

    I’m not sure how treating humans as livestock doesn’t amount to fucking them over.

  12. PseudoAdrienne

    In another words LCGillies, it’s all about *womb envy*. Which I agree. A group doesn’t have the “factory” or assembly line, if you will, within their bodies, so a segment of that said group will legally bind (or *enslave*, which is the better word) the group that does possess the factory within their bodies already to continuously produce, produce, produce– even against their own will. It’s really pathetic that one would be so envious of another person’s natural ability to do ‘whatever,’ that they would go out of their way to force that person to continuously, even against their own will, perform that ever so envied ability.

    Shit. I believe it when people say “if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” Thanks Steinem.

  13. Christopher

    I’ve been thinking of abortion as equivalent to organ donation lately. Let’s face it, a person who needs an organ transplant is definately a human being; no ifs ands or buts about it.

    And yet nobody has ever seriously advocated mandatoy organ donation. Probably because privleged men would have to volunteer to give up their bodies.

    To me, it doesn’t matter whether a glob of cells qulifies as a “person” or not; We don’t require men to sacrifice their bodies to save other people, so why should we ask women?

  14. metamanda

    By complete coincidence I was reading about the origin of that quote last week… it was actually Florynce R. Kennedy who said that.

  15. PseudoAdrienne

    Whoops! Thanks for the correction!

  16. Tess

    “it’s not a fucking baby. It’s a glob of cells.”

    Hi, I’m one of your religo-wing-nuts, (Catholic) New Zealander, but not right wing. Just to fully explain my bias, I have four young boys. So I “get” having my uterus.

    We are _all_ a bunch of cells. It’s not like we ever stop being that, well until we die. And I hate abortion because I really do think that once conceived a baby/glob of cells is its own person.

    What bothers me about many right wing anti-abortionists is that they are not prepared to put their tax where their mouth is. There should be solid welfare support for mothers so that they can raise their children healthy and well educated. It’s not enough to yell “abortion kills babies” when poverty does the same.

  17. Donna

    The fuck? You know, there’s something about that phrase “Abortion on demand” that the godbags (also added to my verbal arsenal – thanks Twisty!) get real riled up about. It’s not the abortion that bothers them. It’s a woman demanding something.

  18. grdoyle

    I believe most of you are missing the larger point here. First, many liberals propose the elestion and appoitment of “moderate” officials that represent mainstream America. Well mainstream Americans do believe that there should be some limits on abortion. These could include a parental notification (not permission mind you) rule for minors seeking an abortion and restraints on late term abortion. I do believe that restraints should not be all encompassing and laws shoudl be created to protect the minority in the cases of rape, incest, and parental abuse (among other things). Furthermore, making the blanket case of pro-choice in absolutely all cases during all nine months of a pregancy is a dangerous belief to have. Why is it that if a 13 yr old girl wanted to have her ears pierced or to go on a school field trip she needs the permission of her parents or guardians but not in the case of a surgical procedure in the process of abortion? The belief in an absolute right to choice is a dangerous precedent to set. One must realise that our great nation is a democracy and the viewpoints of all must be considered. To sit there from your liberal chairs and preach what is the “right” viewpoint for all americans is naive and conceded. The views of all the cultures and diverse backgrounds of all americans should be taken into account when determining the right course for poicies like abortion as well as others. A more logical and pragmatic aproach to solving the abortion dilenma would to have the legislature of individual states represent what the their citizens (with unique and diverse backgrounds) deem the appropriate role and restraints on abortion in the given area. To simpy have a committee of 9 people determine what is right for all american is a authoratarian regime more that a brilliant democracy. And to further this by NARAL telling everyone how they should feel and not letting democracy run its course is an abomination. Again I fully support a role for abortion in our land, but a country with differing views needs a moderate solution. Moderacy seems to be an ideal that NARAl does not support, and instead wants to force everyone to see the world through their eyes. On a side note, a study was conducted and if R v. W was overturned and left up to states, less than 2% of abortion clinics would be shut down. Not as dramatic as thought. Try to read literature that does not simply support your own viewpoints and try to think more pragmatically instead of just imposing your will on other who dont agree. The majoruty of americans do not have your “all or nothing” view of abortion and you would be wise to let them vote and create policies that reflect the beliefs and morals of the majority.


  19. Twisty

    Ordinarily I would delete, on principle, any comment displaying so wanton a disregard for the conventions of modern English as does the above (and in fact I have deleted 3 other unintelligible grdoyle submissions), but the notion that my views hold any sway over “the majoruty of americans” is so charming, and grdoyle’s quaint belief that “our great nation is a democracy” is so cute, I just had to leave it.

  20. Twisty

    Well, that’s just the thing, isn’t it? The The right’s main interest is the preservation of patriarchy, not, as many imagine, the “sanctity of life”. Patriarchy depends for its existence on controlling women, yes, but also on maintaining an underclass of untouchables, so compulsory pregnancy and subsequent abandonment of the results of such pregnancies fit nicely with this agenda.

  21. Deborah

    I actually don’t give a shit if it’s a baby or a glob of cells. If either has taken up residence in my uterus, then I get to decide whether or not to keep it. Fuckall, if a grownup attached himself and his phsyiological functions to your body, you would have the right to cut him the hell off and let him gasp (at least you would if you were a man)!

    I think the whole “glob of cells” argument misses the point. My body is my body, whatever or whoever gloms on, I still get to choose.

    Anyway, when I had a passenger, I called it the Pod. As in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. (Sometimes I called it Body Snatcher, but Pod was easier.) It made me eat. It made me sleep. It made me short of breath. It was a goddamn Pod.

    Now that the Pod is 15 years old, I’ve decided to keep him.

  22. suezboo

    At last ! Comment world ! Twisty, I do think you should have told us you were “conceded”. It changes my whole worldview.

  23. Brian

    Yes, let us discuss this whole topic of those damned procreating redneck bastards who, of course, had a choice in choosing the equipment placed between their legs! I mean, men are priviledged: before God commits us to a womb where hopefully we won’t be prematurely killed, we get to choose whether we want a penis or not. Its quite amazing, I assure you.

    And while we’re on the topic of men’s freedom to get away, perhaps you haven’t considered that by making it solely YOUR choice and enveloping yourself in misandry, that perhaps you can only expect a male to feel no need for attachment. After all, it IS your choice, and men should butt out and shut the **** up. Men, in your view apparently, are only good for satisfying your sexual desires. For persons who so grudgingly talk about men, you are more than willing to sleep with them and then kill your mutually created offspring.

    One also wonders how one claims to have such adamant possesion over their uterus and the contents of it, given they were rather freely giving of the equipment attached to it. One can only expect that when you let a man in there, that a baby shall eventually form. Its not like these fetuses popped out of thin air, YOU had an active hand in creating them. Biology 101 people, you’re all presumably smart, educated women here.

    One also wonders who should be going on about mass murders when abortions over 6 years, the same numerical period of time between 1939 and 1945(WWII), kill around the same number of human beings as the holocaust did, starting pretty much in 1975 where abortions went up to around 1.4 million per annum. It would appear in your own attempt to impugn others, you look over your own atrocities as irrelevant (they are, after all, despite overwhelming scientifically proven and verified evidence to the contrary, just clumps of cells).

    As to the nature of America’s government, it is a representative republic that does have majority rule, but the minority is protected by the provisions written out in the Constitution. Women are 51% of the populace. Minority my hat, if you all got together and voted (assuming all women held your opinion, which many do not) you’d be able to outvote all these men you keep claiming have all the power. You simply use your self-imposed minority status because it is a good shield to hide behind while you lambaste what you consider is the source of all evil: The male penis. Perhaps if you stopped playing the gender card and started voting, this discrimination you sense would evaporate overnight.

  24. Kas

    You know why Australian women don’t already have access to RU-486? Because our fuckheaded government made a deal with a godbag senator back in the day: if they stopped RU-486, he would vote to let them privatise Telstra, the phone company.

    And in the recent senate vote to ban compulsory student unionism (which pays for leftist stuff like university facilities and, oh, CHILD CARE) a representative of the repulsive ‘Family First’ party suddenly and mysteriously changed his mind and voted with the government. Why? No one involved would say, but talk was it’s because the fuckers threw him the bone of the continued non-approval of RU-486.

    Because, of course, privatisation of government-owned companies and sticking it to those young potential lefties are far more important than, you know, women’s lives.

  25. bill

    Godbag, or whatever, you folks are sick with selfishness. Can’t blame you, after all you were formed by a sick culture. I hope you can at least revere/respect the life of your child (evolved tumor) when it is born – will its worth be graduated for sex, ethnicity/race/Spanish language proficiency of it matrilineal line or the amount of career sacrifice demanded by the pregnancy? Seems like it from reading you posts.

    Nope, I’m not a biological father, but the adoptive father of two girls whose mother had the bravery and grace to deliver in a country and society where it is easier – or even mandatory – to excise the little parasites.

  26. Tess


    How do you feel about women being oppressed via abortion, say China and India? Here the patriarchy asserts itself by aborting females.

  27. Lindsey

    I have to laugh so incredibly hard at those who claim that women who want the right to have abortions are selfish, as they are plenty of people WITH children who are extremely selfish themselves. If we’re all so selfish anyway, why would pro-life people WANT us to be able to have children? That makes no sense either. Which is why I absolutely believe the patriarchy statements that surround women not being allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. The selfishness argument has no logic in it, and is totally hiding the “other side”.

    Also, aren’t tumors just globs of cells too? Hahahaha

  28. darkymac

    So I hung around here last night because I was monitoring the “debate” in the Australian Senate – which is the States’ House – over whether the godbag Health Minister should retain his stranglehold over registration of RU486.
    We women around here are pretty pleased that the women in the Senate decided almost to a woman that we should be defended from the godbag Health Minister, and in so doing have taken us the first of two steps needed to get a Roman Catholic doctrinaire patsy out of our lives.
    This article in The Australian (Murdoch owned) makes the best summary of the “debate”.

    This picture is of four of the women in the Senate who defended women.
    They are from both rural and city electorates. That’s my lasses.

  29. Twisty

    Excellent news, Darky. Makes me wish we had some women in our Senate.

  1. But the way in was so easy at Pandagon

    […] From Twisty’s Blog for Choice entry, it looks like the right wing nuts in Australia haven’t been taking their lessons on pretending the abortion wars have shit all to do with “babies” and instead are being open about how obstacles placed in between women and easy access to abortion are all about punishing women, mostly for the monstrous crime of being female. DEPUTY Nationals Leader Warren Truss has spoken out against giving women access to the abortion pill RU486, arguing they should not see a termination as “the easy way out” of an unwanted pregnancy. […]

Comments have been disabled.